From: Nigel Blake Posted At: 04 September 2008 15:40

From:
Subject: FW: unitary Suffolk - having my say Date: 09 September 2008 17:03:53
From: Nigel Blake Posted At: 04 September 2008 15:40 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: unitary Suffolk - having my say Subject: unitary Suffolk - having my say Dear Boundary Committee I live in Ipswich, the proposal to move to a more streamlined form of local government is welcome. The suggestion to achieve this by splitting the county into two and bit parts seems to me profoundly flawed, while the idea of moving to unitary authority for the whole of Suffolk makes a whole load of sense. The single Suffolk idea offers: The reinforcement of a holistic Suffolk identity strengthening the dialogue between urban and rural. Rather than form separate urban and rural ghettos each disadvantaged by their own style of demographic and political characters. A greater sense of influence and strategic leadership for Suffolk as whole. Greater economies of scale and savings from squeezing out duplication. A huge opportunity to build up local communities. To help communities make the best of their particular sense of place and shape services in way that takes the flavour of local need while benefiting from the strategic commissioning. Simplicity of access to services across the whole space of Suffolk. The North Haven / Rural model only partially addresses some of these and in many ways plots a path for Suffolk that marginalises populations and does so in a way that is also more expensive than the whole. Local authorities need to be democratically vibrant to be challenged to
perform well and continuously seek improvement and to meet the needs of their citizens. The North Haven and rural options are most likely to hold their populations in politically stagnant spaces, whereas the single Suffolk option has the best chance of rich political mix to work alongside the great diversity that a whole Suffolk offers. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely Nigel Blake
From:
Subject: FW: Review of Local Government in Suffolk Date: 09 September 2008 17:00:31
From: Paul Aldous Posted At: 05 September 2008 11:09 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Review of Local Government in Suffolk Subject: Review of Local Government in Suffolk Dear Sir/Madam I am writing to you both as an employee of Suffolk County Council but also as a ratepayer in Suffolk. I believe that the proposals for local government as proposed by the Boundary Committee are ill thought out and will not have the support of the majority of the public in Suffolk. I have concerns about the Haven authority as it will bring essentially a large area of rural Suffolk into a predominately Urban space (Ipswich). What experience does Ipswich have of managing rural areas? The boundary of the authority includes Capel St Mary, Stratford St Mary, Trimley St Mary, Blakenham, Claydon etc but not Henley, Coddenham etc. Where is the logic about the boundary division? I agree that without this extension Ipswich would not be a viable unitary authority so the answer must be for Ipswich not to be a Unitary Authority. As for the proposal to remove Lowestoft from Suffolk there is no support for this proposal and it would leave the whole of the remainder of the area not going into Norfolk being administered from Bury (if your proposal is approved). The links between these two areas is appalling. This would have an enormous detrimental effect on the services currently provided by SCC in the Waveney Area. How would the Northern Area Education Service be operated if Lowestoft was removed from Suffolk. Similarly how would home care/residential care/ adult social care in Waveney be organised if Lowestoft is removed from Suffolk as most of the residential homes in the Waveney area are based in Lowestoft and the rest of the services are co-ordinated from Lowestoft. I therefore believe that this proposal is without justification. As for the new Unitary authority for Rural Suffolk my view is that this proposal would be less cost effective than a whole Suffolk option. My view is that one unitary authority is my preference on cost but that there does need to be some mechanism for ensuring that local views are considered and the 'One Suffolk' proposal seems to deal with this adequately. On the work angle I am employed as Manager of the Records Centre and the thought of transferring files between authorities to ensure continuity of service would create real problems. We currently run a service for Suffolk County Council, Mid Suffolk District Council, Ipswich Borough Council and from April 2008 St Edmundsbury Borough Council. It would be a better idea to have one Records Centre dealing with the whole county rather than dealing with separate authorities Yours faithfully Paul Aldous
Emails sent to and from this organisation will be monitored in accordance with the law to ensure compliance with policies and to minimise any security risks.
From:
Subject: FW: Suffolk Local Govt Review - Representations Date: 09 September 2008 16:59:59
-----Original Message----- From: Jade Turner Posted At: 05 September 2008 12:31 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Suffolk Local Govt Review - Representations Subject: Suffolk Local Govt Review - Representations Dear Sir/Madam, My preference is to maintain the status quo. I am concerned, as a council tax payer, about the cost and disruption that will be caused by local government reorganisation. In my opinion, it will be very difficult to accurately quantify if any new structure will be more or less efficient than that which currently exists. If the Boundary Committee concludes that a proposal for change must be made, my preference would be to have one Suffolk Unitary authority which should include Lowestoft. Your faithfully, Mr Turner
From:
Subject: FW: save ipswich Date: 09 September 2008 16:59:49
From: samantha blomfield Posted At: 05 September 2008 12:06 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: save ipswich Subject: FW: save ipswich
From: To: [email protected] Subject: save ipswich Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 12:03:43 +0100 I write in regards to the proposal to cut ipswich council and have north haven make the decisions for our town. I strongly disagree with this proposal Ipswich should be run by Ipswich people who care about the community. how can you seriously expect any one other than those who live in Ipswich to really care about the community. If this goes through Ipswich will seriously go down the pan its bad enough we pay for suffolk county council when they do naff all for the town. Ipswich borough council should be in charge of what happens and how to deal with our issues. Thank you S.Blomfield
Get Hotmail on your mobile from Vodafone Try it Now!
Win £3000 to spend on whatever you want at Uni! Click here to WIN!
Subject: FW: MAKE SUFFOLK THREE (WEST, EAST AND IPSWICH!). Date: 09 September 2008 16:58:39
From: Posted At: 05 September 2008 14:41 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: MAKE SUFFOLK THREE (WEST, EAST AND IPSWICH!). Subject: MAKE SUFFOLK THREE (WEST, EAST AND IPSWICH!). AS A PROFESSIONAL MARINER (RETIRED FROM THE MARITIME COASTGUARD AGENCY) SUFFOLK BORN AND BRED IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO ME TO HAVE A UNITARY COUNCIL IN EAST SUFFOLK WITH WHOM TO LIAISE OVER MATTERS OF MARITIME SAFETY, SEA POLLUTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (PARTICULARLY WHERE OUR NUMEROUS RIVERS AND ESTUARIES ARE CONCERNED - LOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND LIAISON IS ALWAYS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE!!!), THERE IS NOTHING WORSE IN LIFE IN TRYING TO GET A CREATIVE RESPONSE FROM AGENCIES WHO ARE REMOTE AND OUT OF TOUCH - BELIEVE ME. THE 'MCA' HAVE BECOME REMOTE FROM THE COASTLINE PLEASE DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN HERE IN SUFFOLK WHERE OUR LOCAL AUTHORITY IS CONCERNED. ALAN BLOOM (RETIRED IPSWICH SECTOR OFFICER, MCA).
From:
Subject: FW: Suffolk County Council Date: 09 September 2008 16:58:23
From: roy brewster Posted At: 05 September 2008 15:19 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Suffolk County Council Subject: Suffolk County Council To whoever it may concern. I wish to make it known that I am against there being two councils covering Suffolk. I am also against Lowestoft being moved to be part of Norfolk and against the small chance of Ipswich ( plus surounding villages) being hived off as a separate body. Two small councils will duplicate staff plus services and be more costly than a council for the whole of Suffolk. As Lowestoft is the second largest town in Suffolk it should stay rather than be moved to Norfolk for some reason ( probably political and not much else ). Suffolk is a low population region and should stay as one unit. Thank you, Roy B Brewster
From:
Subject: FW: Proposals regarding Suffolk Date: 09 September 2008 16:57:59
From: Sue Littlewood Posted At: 05 September 2008 15:33 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Proposals regarding Suffolk Subject: Proposals regarding Suffolk
Dear Sirs
I writing to lodge my opposition to the proposal that Lowestoft be moved into Norfolk. I can see not one benefit in going down this route. All I can see is that it would cost a lot of money and we, the people of Lowestoft, would gain nothing. What muddled thinking is it that assumes that because Lowestoft and Yarmouth are similar towns, with similar problems, to lump them together would be a good thing. I think we have a far better chance of getting aid, funding and other sources of money if we go down separate routes.
Also I would like to throw my weight behind Suffolk County Council's bid for One Suffolk. I think this would benefit the county as a whole and I believe it would be very divisive to split the county into two.
I hope that these views will be taken on board.
Cheers
Sue
Sue Littlewood
From:
Subject: FW: Suffolk proposals Date: 09 September 2008 16:54:24
From: Max Pemberton Posted At: 06 September 2008 08:33 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Suffolk proposals Subject: Suffolk proposals Dear sirs I write to register my disapproval of the proposals of the committee. I consider and urge that: 1. Lowestoft should remain part of Suffolk. I understand that is the overwhelmong wish of thwe residents there. 2. I reject the formation of an Ipswich Havens Authority. Those of us who live in the country do not wish to be part of apredominately urban authority and, in any case, the proposed authority will be too small. Please register my support for a single Unitary Authority for the whole of Suffolk including Lowesoft. This will be th cheapest solution and will keep all the services together. If you recommend a single Authority for Norwich, why not do the same for Suffolk? Yours faithfully Max Pemberton,
From:
Subject: FW: Proposed Boundary Changes in Suffolk Date: 09 September 2008 16:53:33
From: wenty Posted At: 06 September 2008 11:45 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Proposed Boundary Changes in Suffolk Subject: Proposed Boundary Changes in Suffolk To whom it should concern. The proposed changes totally ignore the reasons why the recent attempt by Ipswich to obtain Unitary Status were dismissed, and are based on the assumption that "bigger is better"----a concept which is completely discredited by the current state of the NHS. The only people who will benefit from the dismantling of the existing two-tier system are the Consultants who will advise those taking the eventual decision. Those of us who live in Suffolk, and who are grateful that we are not financing the activities of IBC, object strongly to any suggestion that this situation should change. Margaret and John Went.
From:
Subject: FW: Changes proposed for Suffolk Date: 09 September 2008 16:52:15
From: Jean & Ivan Ross Posted At: 06 September 2008 15:03 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Changes proposed for Suffolk Subject: Changes proposed for Suffolk What arrogance!! Have you spoken to the ordinary man in the street in Suffolk? I would suggest you have only spoken to this tired, shattered government and the power seekers in Suffolk. Every person I have spoken to in Felixstowe is horrified that we could be welded on to the side of Ipswich and given some meaningless name. viz: Haven Gateway. How can anybody have any loyalty to such a rubbish name. Perhaps the people of Ipswich would like to live in Felixstowe Gateway. I doubt it! I live in Felixstowe, Suffolk and not Ipswich or Haven and would very much like to remain so! I can see no benefits for me in joining with Ipswich, only benefits for Ipswich which will now gain financial benefit from the docks. If Ipswich thinks it is good enough to be on its own let it, do not add other bits on to it that do not want to go. As for Suffolk, either keep it as a whole, preferably without Ipswich and keeping Lowestoft which feels it is no part of Norfolk,( I should know I lived there for 25 years and my wife is Lowestoft born and bred.) or split it into two and call it East Suffolk (a name from the past) and West Suffolk. Come on, have the courage to listen to the ordinary people of Suffolk and keep your fingers out where they are not wanted. Local democracy MUST be heard and allowed to shaoe our future. Not accountants and statiticians who do not even live in Suffolk. Regards Ivan Ross
From:
Subject: FW: Suffolk LG review Date: 09 September 2008 16:51:01
From: Sally Whiffing Posted At: 07 September 2008 09:16 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Suffolk LG review Subject: Suffolk LG review I think that there should be one unitary council for the whole of Suffolk, including Lowestoft. Sally Whiffing
From:
Subject: FW: McCartney response on OneSuffolk Date: 09 September 2008 16:50:32
From: David McCartney Posted At: 07 September 2008 12:09 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: McCartney response on OneSuffolk Subject: McCartney response on OneSuffolk Dear Sir I am an experienced IT Consultant based in Ipswich having lived here for almost 30years. I am married with 2 children; outside work and family I am involved in the coaching of local sport in Ipswich I have a keen interest in the organistion of local government I tender my support for OneSuffolk. My case is based on the efficiency gains that a single strong organisation offers. Also, I see no need to duplicate and / or break up an organisation that provides effective service across a range of sectors including education, roads, library services etc. Your faithfully David J McCartney
From:
Subject: FW: LGR in Suffolk Date: 09 September 2008 16:50:15
From: Tracey BTI Posted At: 07 September 2008 13:08 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: LGR in Suffolk Subject: LGR in Suffolk Dear Sir, I believe that the "One Suffolk" model should be adopted only, for economic and efficient reasons. Major and costly services such as Education, Transport and Highways, benefit from being co-ordinated and managed, both strategically and operationally, on a County wide basis as a whole. Implementing cross border re-charging, differing policies, differing standards and opposed strategic aims would counteract the benefits created from removing the current two tier system that will undoubtedly create savings by removing duplication. I would welcome my views being considered as part of this consulation process. Tracey Vobe
From:
Subject: FW: Lowestoft,SUFFOLK. Date: 09 September 2008 16:50:01
-----Original Message----- From: Ann E Batchelor Posted At: 07 September 2008 13:05 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Lowestoft,SUFFOLK. Subject: Lowestoft,SUFFOLK. How dare you suggest that Lowestoft SUFFOLK should be joined to norfolk. It is steeped in its own history.My grandparents were Mayor and Mayoress of LOWESTOFT,SUFFOLK. They were The Barnards of The Maples,cotmer road, Carleton Colville.I know they did alot of public work in the area for the benefit of the local people and their descendants are doing the same in their localities too, Yours faithfully Mrs Ann Batchelor,
From:
Subject: FW: Suffolk Boundary Committee Deliberations Date: 09 September 2008 16:48:03
From: Colin Posted At: 07 September 2008 17:30 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Suffolk Boundary Committee Deliberations Subject: Suffolk Boundary Committee Deliberations Importance: High Sir/madam As residents of Little Bealings Parish we wish our feelings to be recorded as input to the boundary committee deliberations. With regard to the Boundary Committee discussions regarding the potential for single or multiple Unitary Authorities, I feel strongly that the only viable option for this Parish is a Single Unitary Authority. We have already moved to the provision of many services on a whole-county basis and I see a single unitary authority as a logical progression of this process and as the only effective way of delivering county-wide services on a cost effective basis. If this is not possible, then the worst possible outcome would be Dual or Multiple Unitary Authorities whereby the parish of Little Bealings is grouped with Ipswich, or North Haven. In my opinion, Little Bealings has always been part of a rural environment and our needs, our community and out way or life reflect that. We have no affinity nor share the same problems or outlook of Ipswich; an urban population of some 100,000 people. On that note I also fail to understand how Westerfield and Henley were excluded from the North Haven area whilst our parish was included. Not only does this create a somewhat incongruous North Haven boundary, I would have thought Westerfield and Henley were more suited to North haven, sharing contiguous borders with Ipswich whilst Little Bealings shares no such border. Best Regards Colin and Fran Hopkins
From:
Subject: FW: Suffolk Boundaries Date: 09 September 2008 16:47:32
From: Beckwith, Trevor Posted At: 07 September 2008 18:42 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Suffolk Boundaries Subject: FW: Suffolk Boundaries From: Kirsty Fitzjohn Sent: 05 September 2008 08:42 To: Beckwith, Trevor Subject: FW: Suffolk Boundaries Hi Trevor, been meaning to do this for ages, but my computer says that it hasn’t reached the boundary committee. I’ve used the address given in Community Spirit. Please could you forward it on to the right people for me? Thanks Kirsty
From: Kirsty Fitzjohn Sent: 05 September 2008 08:40 To: '[email protected].' Cc: 'Beckwith, Trevor'; 'Warby, Frank' Subject: Suffolk Boundaries Dear Sirs, I have taken time to read the Boundary Commission’s proposal for Suffolk and the various pro’s and cons of the options presented in the local press and Local Authority Publications. My view is that I, as a resident of Bury St Edmunds, would be best served by Unitary Authority covering West Suffolk. I know that this is not one of the options being proposed by the Boundary Commission and I cannot understand why it was not considered. My reasons are as follows:
1. Whilst a single unitary authority may benefit from economies of scale, biggest is not always best. Having worked for SCC I know how such organisations work. Administrators in Bury felt that they were not heard by Managers in Ipswich. A single Unitary Authority for the whole of Suffolk would be too big, unwieldy and unworkable. 2. I fear that it is the smaller market towns who would bear the brunt of any economies of scale, with Ipswich and Lowestoft reaping the benefits. Resources would be focussed on the areas considered to be of most need, and Bury St Edmunds is not considered to be one of these areas. I want to be paying my council tax knowing that people will benefit locally, not that it is being spent 60 miles away on the other side of the county. People already feel disgruntled that parking charges raised in Bury are spent anywhere but in Bury. This would only get worse in a single unitary authority. 3. Having a one authority (a unitary authority) rather than two ( a county council and a borough council) administering an area would certainly avoid duplication of tasks and avoid conflict between opposing authorities. This would be the case no matter the size of the authority. You do not need to have a whole Suffolk unitary authority to achieve this benefit. I am sure that a Suffolk unitary would have to divide the work of different areas of the county between a number of managers (as SCC does now) and have administrators below them. If anything such a large authority would require more layers of management. Having three smaller unitary trusts would still achieve the same benefit. In a Suffolk unitary authority, you would probably have, for example, a Safeguarding Manager for Ipswich, Lowestoft and Bury (3) with administrators below them. If you adopted a Three authority division you would still have a Safeguarding Manager for each authority with administrators below them – still 3. 4. I have worked for SCC and know that attention tends to be focussed on Ipswich. Managers are based in Ipswich, meetings happen in Ipswich, training happens in Ipswich. Offices are moved from outlying areas and centralised in Ipswich. Managers move to live in Ipswich to be nearer to work and lose touch with the interests of outlying areas. Whilst we may have Councillors who live in their constituencies, they are not the ones making the day to day decisions about running the Council. Council Officers do this and they mainly live in Ipswich. The interests of urban Ipswich, with its docks, University and Football Team are very different from Bury St Edmunds, a quiet rural market town, and I feel that our interests would not be given equal weight when considered against the needs of Ipswich, in fact we would be neglected. 5. People in Suffolk have a strong sense of local identity. Other similar areas with strong regional identities were forced to become part of larger administrative authorities found that this did not work and have since re- emerged as independent authorities. e.g East Yorkshire was made part of Humberside and Rutland made part of
Leicestershire it did not work and they have now regained their independence. West Suffolk is a distinct area of Suffolk with little in common with East Suffolk, a coastal area or Ipswich a large urban area. We have different needs and should be separately administered in order to ensure that each area has its needs met. 6. Even within St Edmundsbury covering, Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill, I have heard some mutterings that Haverhill feel hard done by when Bury schools have opportunities to be involved in the Bury Festival yet Haverhill schools are not invited. This would be even worse in a bigger authority.
In summary, I am opposed to a single unitary trust. Two Unitary authorities once covering the North and one covering “rural” Suffolk would be a little better but what I would prefer is a three way split with West Suffolk standing alone. Yours sincerely Kirsty Fitzjohn
******************************************************************* This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this email in error please contact the Sender.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses and content security threats.
WARNING: Although the Council has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the Council cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments. ********************************************************-S-E-B-C-**
From:
Subject: FW: Suffolk LGR Date: 09 September 2008 16:47:02
From: Douglas, Anthony Posted At: 07 September 2008 19:24 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Suffolk LGR Subject: Suffolk LGR I write as a Suffolk resident. I write in the strongest possible terms to oppose the suggestion of two unitary authorities removing Ipswich and Felixstowe (North Haven), and Lowestoft (proposed to go into a Norfolk unitary council) from the control of Suffolk County Council, leaving a residual Suffolk rural council. My reasons are as follows:
1. Both Suffolk and Norfolk have strong existing internal relationships, joint services and partnerships, which will take huge amounts of time to unravel and disaggregate, leading to 2-3 years of transition on top of the current state of planning blight.
2. Suffolk County Council could easily lead a new unitary council for Suffolk, similar to those agreed for Cornwall and Northumberland. It has taken years to develop joint working between the County Council and its 7 districts and to discard this is poor value for money and not strategically sound
3. Services to vulnerable people are likely to suffer because economies of scale will no longer be possible in Suffolk, as well as the additional unwarranted costs of disaggregation. For example, a social care market will be harder to develop and sustain.
4. It is socially divisive to split Suffolk. North Haven will have a clear focus on regeneration and growth, leaving a more conservative rural Suffolk to be that much more resistant to vital social change in issues like diversity - similarly, a unitary would be a more diverse council and set of communities and much stronger for that.
5. I have felt for years that there was a logic to a Waveney unitary council across the Norfolk and Suffolk borders, and can see no sense in absorbing Lowestoft into the much larger proposed Norfolk unitary. This is another gratuitously divisive element of the proposals - a Norfolk unitary, Suffolk unitary, perhaps with an expanded Waveney Council combing Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth, makes most
demographic, business and cultural sense.
Yours sincerely Anthony Douglas CBE
This email and any files and/or attachments transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
CAFCASS makes reasonable attempts to exclude from this e-mail and any attachments viruses, or any other defect which might affect your computer or IT system, but it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that they are virus free and CAFCASS accepts no liability for any loss or damage arising in any way from their receipt or use.
From:
Subject: FW: LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION-SUFFOLK Date: 09 September 2008 16:45:06
From: David Houchell Posted At: 07 September 2008 12:40 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION-SUFFOLK Subject: LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION-SUFFOLK Sirs, I have given some thought to the alternatives on offer. It strikes me that there is not enough wrong with the current system to have such a great change. Surely Local Councils should be looked at by experts, who are not always consultants.What happened to best practise? also there are a lot of experts in private companies who have a keen eye for fine tuning systems. The option of Ipswich becoming a Unitary Council is in my opinion a complete non starter! The aspirations of the Labour MP Chris Mole & the Chief Executive appear to be personal & not for the good of the whole county. Two authorities running essential services such as Police,Fire,Education, Social Services will be totally unnecessary & much more expensive. When will our leaders take a good look at other shake ups and recognise that there are more bad results & more disgruntled staff than improvements. Take NHS as an example. Could a recommendation of no change be considered or will the Committee be critisised ? I hope this helps & makes a difference. I am a regular user of local authorities for planning & building regulations applications & have also witnessed the pathetic effort of SCC to control the phone system for MSDC. The staff did not know who did what, where they worked or if they were available, on holiday etc etc. We all need a bit of personal service in this country, something that is continually being eroded by so called experts! Yours Faithfully,
David Houchell, Resident
Subject: FW: Date: 09 September 2008 16:43:57
From: David Chappell Posted At: 08 September 2008 10:51 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Subject: I have just read the Who Cares leaflet produced by www.keepuslocal,ent. It is rare to see such an inept biased document! The residents of West Suffolk have made it very clear to me at every level that they prefer an East/West split allowing Ipswich to go their own way, However, the document/map produced is no less that political gerrymandering by the Tory party to strike out the strongly Liberal Democrat areas of West Suffolk and so ensure continuing Tory |control of both east and west Suffolk. It should be binned. The ineptness of this document should not detract from the real demand by ordinary people for an East West Suffolk split, particularly if Lowestoft is brought back into Suffolk in accordance with the wishes of the residents. Although it does appear from the initial proposals that the wishes of the ordinary people in Suffolk as against the ‘political classes’ has already been set aside by the Boundary Committee David Chappell,
Subject: FW: Unitary authorities Date: 09 September 2008 16:43:43
From: VANESSA GREGORY Posted At: 08 September 2008 11:36 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Unitary authorities Subject: Unitary authorities As a resident of Woodbridge, in Suffolk, I am in favour of scrapping the current two (or three) tier system in favour of a unitary authority. However, the make-up and requirements of Suffolk are too diverse to be properly served by one local authority. In my view, an East-West split would be more appropriate. All the coastal areas would come under Ipswich, with Lowestoft moving into Norfolk; the rural interior to be administered from Bury St Edmunds. This would more accurately reflect the nature of the county and allow it to be better served. vanessa gregory
From:
Subject: FW: Boundry Options for Suffolk Date: 09 September 2008 16:41:04
From: Roger Burgess Posted At: 08 September 2008 15:43 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Boundry Options for Suffolk Subject: Fw: Boundry Options for Suffolk ----- Original Message ----- From: Roger Burgess To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 1:13 PM Subject: Boundry Options for Suffolk Dear Sir/Madam Suffolk County Unitary Boundaries I have an interest in the proposed boundaries for Suffolk as I am a long term resident, interested in local government, and am particularly involved by way of being a School Governor of Kison Primary School. In my view the option of a Unitary Council for Ipswich, Felixstowe and certain surrounding villages is totally inappropriate and I do not see how you could possibly arrived at that conclusion. Too much influence by some very pushy Officers of Ipswich perhaps. It would not be a balanced unit with the villages being at a considerable disadvantage. I support the one Unitary Council for the whole of Suffolk, which should include Lowestoft, with a well thought out arrangement for more local involvement through committees or whatever. I can see that councillors subject to the scrutiny of their local areas, "constituencies", could produce the best services for particularly the larger responsibilities, such as education as it is now, at the lowest cost. I believe this would be an appropriate size for management and financial purposes. Please include my representations to your further consideration. R M Burgess
Subject: FW: Boundary Proposal for Suffolk and Little Bealings Date: 09 September 2008 16:40:53
From: Trevor Marsden Posted At: 08 September 2008 16:12 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Boundary Proposal for Suffolk and Little Bealings Subject: Boundary Proposal for Suffolk and Little Bealings As residents of Little Bealings, we are writing to express our protest against your consideration of the inclusion of Little Bealings within the North Haven (Ipswich) Unity. Here in Little Bealings, we regard ourselves and our identity as: a) (primarily) a rural community b) (secondly) a suburb of Woodbridge. - it is, afer all, part of our postal address! Your plans would appear to take away these identities and treat us as an Urban location. We feel that any future North Haven authority would treat us as such. Our needs are those of a rural community and would be best served by an authority acting with a strong bias towards, and understanding of, rural locations. Yours sincerely, Carole & Trevor Marsden
From:
Subject: FW: Council changes Date: 09 September 2008 16:40:36
From: Keith Richmond Sent: 08 September 2008 16:49 To: Reviews@ Subject: Council changes Dear Sirs, Firstly, one wonders why a change is necessary when the existing structure has served the County well. Secondly how these proposals can be put forward as options without exact cost implications particularly on the people that matter most is surprising. Finally the idea of splitting Suffolk is a very poor idea and must lead to greater costs by doubling up on management and enormous confusion for constituents particularly for people around the boundaries or people moving in.
Please if you must make changes keep Suffolk together and I mean all of Suffolk including Lowestoft who do not wish their town to become a Berwick on Tweed I am sure. Whatever steps are taken they must stack up to providing efficiency of managament of services for the County and efficiency for constituents who need to communicate with the Council. Above all however, if it costs more for constituents, it is simply not justifiable to change anything in this climate with recession and possible depression around the corner. Council tax is already far too high and services seem to becoming less effective whether we are talking about education, policing or waste. (this is not just confined to Suffolk) To pretend that a huge reorganisation which will result in political squabbling from the top down with the result of constituents picking up a bigger bill in the long run and a huge one- off cost and possible interuption of services for a year or two during the changes, will improve the lot of Suffolk people is difficult to believe. In summary, If council tax will be less and services improved or as good under one unitary authority then please change to a single authority. If council tax will be more then
no change. Lowestoft must not be lost to the County and under no circumstances should the County be carved up to serve the political needs of Ipswich or Norwich. Keith Richmond
From:
Subject: FW: Suffolk boundary reviews Date: 09 September 2008 16:40:16
From: Peter Donoghue Posted At: 08 September 2008 17:28 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Suffolk boundary reviews Subject: Suffolk boundary reviews Dear Boundary Committee Regarding your proposal for new local government boundaries in Suffolk, I have to say I am not convinced. I believe that the most important factor in establishing the limits to size of the new boundaries is the time it takes to travel from the central parts to the outlying areas. Your unitary covering "rural Suffolk" is simply too big, involving unacceptable journey costs for many people wanting personal access to their democratic representatives and council officers, and for the delivery of services. This will weaken both democratic accountability and service effectiveness. We need to remember that with the end of cheap oil, transport is going to be more expensive in future, both for councils, the service providers, and for their customers, the general public. Economies of scale which may have obtained in the past will undergo a fundamental and permanent shift in favour of more local organisations and economic life. I fear that as a society we are closing our eyes to this imminent change rather than preparing for it. The structure of local government is a vital part of this preparation and should reinforce our ability to adapt to the new reality. I hope you will reconsider your present proposals. Yours faithfully Peter Donoghue RIBA
From:
Subject: FW: Proposed re-organisation of Suffolk Councils Date: 09 September 2008 16:38:50
-----Original Message----- From: Posted At: 08 September 2008 18:32 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Proposed re-organisation of Suffolk Councils Subject: Proposed re-organisation of Suffolk Councils Dear Sir, Councils in Suffolk have already spent a significant amount of money on the failed unitary bid put in by Ipswich, so I think the Boundary Committee should have allowed us the option of choosing the status quo and opting for "No Change" at the current time. It is almost certain that Labour will lose the next election, so i do not think we should be subjected to more change for change's sake by this incompetent government. Already Suffolk County Council have wasted £20,000 of taxpayers' money on leaflets informing us that one unitary council will save us all money (!) so if we do have any choice at all, and this is not just a pretend consultation like one over the loss of head and neck cancer surgery in Suffolk, then i am choosing the option you have failed to offer us: no change at the moment. Please acknowledge this e-mail. Yours sincerely Sally Wainman
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
From:
Subject: FW: Suffolk restructuring Date: 09 September 2008 16:38:14
From: Posted At: 08 September 2008 20:30 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Suffolk restructuring Subject: Suffolk restructuring I am in favour of any proposal that gets rid of excessive layers of local government and the charges they generate. A single unitary authority is what is needed in my view and no linking of Ipswich to the Felixstowe peninsula. Felixstowe would only become a suburb of Ipswich with all the development that would take place at Ipswich's instigation. Yours faithfully Terry Lomax,
From:
Subject: FW: Future of local government in Suffolk Date: 09 September 2008 16:38:09
From: steve henry Posted At: 08 September 2008 21:08 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Future of local government in Suffolk Subject: Future of local government in Suffolk The only sensible solution for Suffolk is a unitary county, based on the current county boundaries. Unitary authorities are a good idea - they are likely to be cheaper (one chief executive instead of seven), more accountable (there will be no more passing the buck) and less confusing for the public (who most of the time don't know who provides what service). But creating two authorities makes no sense. The currenty county council already provides 80% of services and does it effectively (it is a four star authority). Adding another 20% of services should not be a problem. However, dismantling the county council and dividing its services between two authorities would be costly and totally unnecessary. We already know the greater Ipswich could not stand on its own two feet. It woud have to 'buy-in' services from the other authority - most probably education, but definitely waste disposal and adoption services. Creating two authorities would also cause disruption to the current fire service, which is currently a countywide authority - let's keep it that way. The police and health (both countywide services) are both in favour of a countywide unitary council. Let's learn from the experiences of other areas, where two authorities have been created, and they have then 'joined up' to provide services - because it is cheaper and more effective to do it that way. For once let common sense prevail. Manda Henry
Try Facebook in Windows Live Messenger! Try it Now!
Subject: FW: One Suffolk Date: 09 September 2008 16:38:01
-----Original Message----- From: Dixons Posted At: 08 September 2008 21:45 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: One Suffolk Subject: One Suffolk Dear sirs, We have just read about the proposed structure for the future of local government through our local church newsletter. We have received NO official information about the proposals from our local council (Mid Suffolk) despite the importance to local residents of these long-reaching proposals. We are strongly OPPOSED to one giant, remote and even less accountable unitary authority for the whole county with vague strategic goals and 'stronger political leadership' with even more levels of public servants to administer the following bureaucratic levels: Strategic Partnership, Full Council, Regulatory Committees, Suffolk Executive, Neighbourhood Forums and Area Assemblies, Area Regulatory Functions, etc, etc, AND a Scrutiny Committee together with Scrutiny Working Parties. We agree with John Griffiths (Mercury, September 4, 2008) that smaller rural authorities (such as the existing Mid Suffolk), while big enough to take practical strategic decisions for the area, could make similar savings on the current local government model while being much more relevant, approachable and accountable to their local residents. They would be better at working with - and listening to - parishes and town councils and they would be more focused on making sure that local Council Tax is invested in local needs and priorities. Finally, smaller authorities would also be more accessible. One phone call to our local Mid Sufffolk authority for advice, help or information usually produces immediate results. The same request through the larger Bury St Edmunds Council involves being passed from one department to another until, maybe, the right response is achieved. This new local government review is unasked for and uncalled for. It sounds like yet another quango set up to increase the employment rate and pension
pots of urban public servants, with little or no ability to improve services and value for money for the residents of Mid Suffolk or other rural communities. Change for change's sake. Yours sincerely BJ and E Dixon
From:
Subject: FW: Website comments - other Date: 09 September 2008 11:09:33
Another one. -----Original Message----- From: Marianne Potter Sent: 09 September 2008 10:56 To: Ross Clayton Subject: FW: Website comments - other -----Original Message----- From: Posted At: 08 September 2008 15:14 Posted To: info_inbox Conversation: Website comments - other Subject: Website comments - other Your name* : Julian Haywood Smith Your email* : Your telephone number : I am : a member of the public Comment/enquiry type: : other Comments* : I would like to register my view on the Unitary proposals for Suffolk. If this is not the way to achieve this, would you please advise accordingly, but in the interim, my considered opinion is that Suffolk, as a single unitary authority, including Lowestoft, could adequately administer the county as a whole, and logically, should be the most efficient model in terms of cost and value for money.
From:
Subject: FW: NORFOLK AND LOWESTOFT.... Date: 08 September 2008 14:08:37
From: Colin James Watling Posted At: 08 September 2008 04:29 Posted To: info_inbox Conversation: NORFOLK AND LOWESTOFT.... Subject: NORFOLK AND LOWESTOFT.... I'm all for Lowestoft being part of Norfolk if you can give us all a better deal and come up with the goods-trouble is to date the Government has not come up with anything to impress me or make me think otherwise about them bunch of self centered out of touch fools and idiots that need to be brought out of the Trance Induction their under. Will the Bascule Bridge Collapse shortly after 30 or so years of wear and tear-God I hope I'm not a victim? All they do is interfere with things and make them worse and the more they interfere the worse things become until they've gone so far nothing else can be ruined-so therefore this Totalitarian Dictatorship self centered Government Regime (and all Governments past and future) need to be eradicated-by common sense means but if some terrorist blows the b***dy lot up all I have to do is switch off my TV set and forget about them as I wouldn't care less just like others wouldn't. They are the focus of the underlying problem with this country at the moment and they presence undermines everthing that is good and what this country stands for-they need to be pushed aside and eradicated A.S.A.P-all Governments need to be done this to but change won't come overnight-they are the underlying problem and the problem needs to be eradicated and resolved-RIGHT NOW before its too late.
-- Good Clear Skies-when just appropriate -- Colin James Watling --
From:
Subject: FW: Boundary Committee Recomendations for Suffolk. Date: 05 September 2008 13:45:37
From: Mike Ames Sent: 05 September 2008 13:45 To: William Morrison Subject: Boundary Committee Recomendations for Suffolk. Dear Review Manager, This is response to the published Draft Propsals for Unitary Government in Suffolk. It compliments my response of 9th June '08, prior to the draft publication of propsals. I support the Committees conclusion that two unitary authorities, excluding the Lowestoft area would be more able to achieve the Secretary of State five criteria, as para 2.5 ,page 5. I agree with para 2.21 .page 9 - that the committee cannot recommend the retention of the current two tier structure. I agree with the last sentence of para 2.44 ,page 18, especially in the current case of Bury St edmunds town council, where the St Edmundsbury borough council behaves as though the Town Council does not exist. To this end much thought needs to be given to the next layer down once a Unitary Authority comes into being. Therefore Locality Arrangements and Community Engagement requires some guidance if the new Unitaries are to work. I agree with paras 2.53 - 2.56 on page 21.. I agree with recommendation in Chapter 4 - With the social haits of residents in Lowestaft - looking to Norwich for main shopping, the existing communications of road and rail and a postal code with the prefix 'N' are already established. What I wish to see is a system of Local G>overnment which features Community Empowerment as important. Yours sincerely, MICHAEL AMES.
Please acknowledge receipt of this communication.
From:
Subject: FW: Local Government Reorganisation in Suffolk Date: 05 September 2008 11:58:34
From: cliff james Posted At: 30 August 2008 10:55 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Local Government Reorganisation in Suffolk Subject: Local Government Reorganisation in Suffolk Dear Sir/Madam My family and I live in Ipswich at 24 Warrington Road Ipswich Suffolk. I am pleased that you have residents to express a view about the future of local government in Suffolk. I feel very strongly having read all the information provided that the best option would be to have one council for Suffolk providing all the services required. Residents have a strong commitment to the county and already most of the services provided to the public are provided by the County Council. I believe that a strong case has been made for one unitary authority which will have the resources to maintain strong and robust services in partnership with other bodies such as the Primary Care Trusts, Police Authority and other agencies. One authority will be more financially viable and make best use of resources with targeted funding to those areas with high deprivation which need the money most. One authority will reduce the number of councillors, chief and senior officers to allow more money to go direct into services and provide economies of scale with less duplication of key committees and functions. I have read the case of respective councils in Suffolk as well as the Boundary Committees proposals and feel the strongest case is for one unitary authority for Suffolk which includes Lowestoft as well. I feel Suffolk is very similar to
Norfolk and the case for one authority for Norfolk is a strong one and the same should be the case for Suffolk. Please bring this to the attention of those dealing this matter Yours faithfully Cliff James
From:
Subject: FW: Suffolk Local Government Date: 03 September 2008 15:39:49
-----Original Message-----
-----Original Message----- From: John Zeal Posted At: 12 August 2008 11:55 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Suffolk Local Government Subject: Suffolk Local Government Good morning to you all. You have probably made up your mind what you consider is good for Suffolk. I have always considered that District Councils are a waste of time and money. In your deliberations you have not mentioned increased responsibilities to Town and Parish Councils; this is important to enable local views to be considered. I have no wish for Ipswich to be the centre of a "Whole Suffolk Unitary Council". From a West Suffolk point of view, Ipswich has never had any consideration for people of this area. From personal experience some staff at Ipswich have no idea in what county Mildenhall is placed. From a preference view, I would accept your number one choice of a rural Suffolk Unitary Council, excluding Ipswich and Felixstowe. However, it is a pity you have not given real consideration to three unitary bodies. e.g. West Suffolk, East Suffolk and an extended Ipswich authority. I have said my piece, but I doubt if my views will be considered worthwhile. Regards John Zeal
From:
Subject: FW: "North Haven" Date: 03 September 2008 09:06:26
From: Posted At: 02 September 2008 18:16 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: "North Haven" Subject: "North Haven" I am against the plan for a new Council, to cover Ipswich, Felixtowe the Shotley Peninsula and surrounding rural areas. As far as I can see, a single Council for Ipswich, would be better equipped to deal with the issues concerning Ipswich people. I hope that this ridiculous proposal will soon be shelved, as I cannot see that it would be of any benefit to any of the communities concerned. Yours faithfully C Shiels (Mrs) Ipswich
From:
Subject: FW: (no subject) Date: 03 September 2008 09:05:57
From: Posted At: 02 September 2008 18:46 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: (no subject) Subject: (no subject) Dear Sirs, with regard to the leaflet being distributed by the waveney district council, I have this to say....What we really want, is an authority working on behalf of the residents, and not for their own advantage..we want an organisation that will not throw money away on useless projects, purely for the purpose of avoiding fund capping.. the area desparately needs a third crossing, over the river, that will not be affected by rail or river traffic. we do not need the road system changed every couple of years, and at this moment in time, the system has caused chaos in the town, and I for one avoid the towncentre like the plague. this project was one of many carried out for the purpose i mentioned previously....we also want an authority who will account for all transactions, and not allow funds to DISSAPPEAR without trace.(i could make a guess at where it went,as could many others) take a walk through the town on various occasions, and a stroll along the seafront, and hover around by the water feature by the pier during the evening on a few occasions, and you will see that the people you observe do not appear to be the kind who appreciate such fancy, novelties, expensive as they are, but show their delight at launching glass bottles into the water jets, and shatter over a wide area, causing a danger to youngsters who often run barefoot through the fountains....we want an authority who will provide impressive beat police AT ALL HOURS OF THE DAY AND NIGHT. implimenting the law in no uncertain terms. we have an authority at present who care nothing for the residents, who are paid fortunes for doing little or nothing by way of serving the community., and who think nothing of upping the tax to pay for their own lavish lifestyles..... their is a lot of anger out here because of what goes on in the nature of waste, greed, and a few other things, and someone up there should impement steps to STOP THE ROT..!!
From:
Subject: FW: Suffolk Proposals Date: 03 September 2008 09:04:52
From: Rosalie Rowland Posted At: 02 September 2008 18:53 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Suffolk Proposals Subject: Suffolk Proposals Please leave Suffolk as it is. If not, please ensure that Lowestoft remains in Suffolk. Also please consider the cost to already over-stretched tax payers. If it is necessary to have one or more unitary authorities, the strange boundary suggestions suggest that it would be preferable to have One Authority. RJ Rowland
From:
Subject: FW: One council or two? Date: 02 September 2008 17:32:08
From: Janet McGuire Posted At: 02 September 2008 10:20 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: One council or two? Subject: One council or two? Dear all I feel that the single council option would be the option that will be cheaper and most efficient for the tax payers. However, changes must be cost effective whilst offering the best service to the community. With the economic down turn it is important that we don’t drop some of the caring roles we offer in the community- however, costs could be made elsewhere by having more joined up thinking and in some cases fewer staff across the county completing admin/ paper. If a particular area is a ‘beacon’ example of excellent practice then please leave alone! Incorporate it into the new system and try to emulate elsewhere. Having joined up thinking offers parity to tax payers- the same service of bin collection and educational, health provision for example. However, the service must be based on the system that currently has the best practise in the county or country! Community voice is important- the forum/ local council is vital if the community is to be heard and valued- although keeping paperwork to a minimum will be very important if this structure is to be cost effective. Much thought needs to go into this forum process. Jan McGuire
From:
Subject: FW: Boundary Review for Suffolk Date: 02 September 2008 17:31:27
From: Robin Howe Posted At: 02 September 2008 10:09 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Boundary Review for Suffolk Subject: Boundary Review for Suffolk Hi, Can I please state my preferred position on the review for Suffolk as:- 'One Council for the whole of Suffolk to include Lowestoft' I believe the 'economy of scale' and the strategic overview this would bring would mean an enhanced provision for the people of Suffolk. Robin Howe JP BA DMS
From:
Subject: FW: Unitary proposals for Suffolk Date: 02 September 2008 17:30:49
From: Jonathan Eckersley Posted At: 02 September 2008 11:19 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Unitary proposals for Suffolk Subject: Unitary proposals for Suffolk I would like to give you my views on the proposals for Suffolk. For your information I live in Woodbridge and have been employed by Suffolk CC for over twenty years, currently at Endeavour House in Ipswich. I am fully in support of a unitary arrangement for Local Government in Suffolk. My preference is for a single unitary authority within the current boundaries of Suffolk. However, if the North Haven option goes ahead I would recommend that Woodbridge and its surrounding parishes are included in the North Haven unitary authority rather than the residual Suffolk unitary authority. This is particularly so if the decision is for Lowestoft to remain in the residual Suffolk unitary authority. The reason for my view is the poor transport links between this part of east Suffolk and both Lowestoft and Bury St Edmunds. Thank you. Jonathan Eckersley.
From:
Subject: FW: local government review Lowestoft proposal Date: 02 September 2008 17:29:55
From: rodhodds Posted At: 02 September 2008 12:17 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: local government review Lowestoft proposal Subject: local government review Lowestoft proposal Sir I feel I must register my strong feelings against the committee’s proposal of uniting Lowestoft (Suffolk) with Norfolk. I am particularly dismayed that no option of remaining within Suffolk has been given. It would appear that those people living in London have no idea as to what this would mean to us here in Lowestoft. I am sure that it is known that Lowestoft is a deprived area. One of the biggest employers is WDC along with DEFRA. If these plans were to go ahead there would be little reason for graduates to come to Lowestoft to work. WDC was in the process of funding new buildings in conjunction with DEFRA and SCC. DEFRA has said they will pull out if this does not happen. And of course there would be no point in SCC being in Lowestoft. These plans have now been put on hold. If I’m living in a deprived area now what would it then be like? Who is going to be the main employer? Education I would imagine. Suffolk is in the middle of changing its education system from 3 tiers to 2 tiers. A new high school is to be built and other primary and middle schools are “to be got rid of”. How is this going to work if we are in the process of being governed by Norfolk? However Yarmouth is also an area of deprivation. So the two towns would both be within Norfolk and clambering for the same resources. An area about 12 miles long would be struggling with deprivation. So what is the answer? Join with Suffolk coastal. Continue with the those practices of WDC which are good (e.g. waste disposal which I believe is in the top of England) but use their knowledge and understanding to create an area which can progress. I have not written before as I have felt that there was little point. However I now feel that perhaps those in power might listen to those this proposal affects. Let’s
hope so. Yours faithfully Hilary Hodds
From:
Subject: FW: Suffolk re-organisation Date: 02 September 2008 17:29:44
From: Jill Poulter Posted At: 02 September 2008 12:32 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Suffolk re-organisation Subject: Suffolk re-organisation In terms of the proposal to remove Lowestoft from Suffolk, this would seem to removing the only sizable community from the north of the county and isolating all the local smaller towns and villages who do not link naturally with Ipswich or Bury St Edmunds. It would also be difficult to place services in the local communities, many of which are presently based in Lowestoft. If the decision was made to remove Lowestoft it would be more sensible to put all of Waveney into Norfolk and perhaps move some of the area further west from Norfolk to Suffolk in order to retain proportionate distribution of population. Finally, although at present the northern area is at a significant distance from Ipswich there are transport links which I understand may well improve im terms of increased train links. There is no similar link to the west of the county which would become the centre if Ipswich/Felixstowe became a seperate authority. Jill Poulter
From:
Subject: FW: Lowestoft Suffolk Date: 02 September 2008 17:29:33
From: roy gardiner Posted At: 02 September 2008 12:34 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Lowestoft Suffolk Subject: Lowestoft Suffolk The sun has risen in LOWESTOFT, SUFFOLK for Millions of years without a problem, Why change that? The residents of Lowestoft SUFFOLK are proud of their heritage and of the fact that Lowestoft is the most easterly point in the UK. When I go on holiday and people ask me where I am from I always say Lowestoft in Suffolk and if they do not know where Lowestoft, Suffolk is, I say to them, put a ruler on the map of England and you will see that Lowestoft, Suffolk is the most easterly point in the UK. Changing the boundry to exclude Lowestoft from Suffolk is a silly idea, the local people want Lowestoft to remain as part of Suffolk which it always has been and always should be! Regards Mr & Mrs R Gardiner Lowestoft Suffolk
From:
Subject: FW: proposals for local government in suffolk Date: 02 September 2008 17:28:36
From: Penny Bentley Posted At: 02 September 2008 12:52 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: proposals for local government in suffolk Subject: proposals for local government in suffolk I am writing as a resident of Bury St Edmunds to express my views on the draft proposal for a unitary district for ‘rural Suffolk’. My first preference would be for a unitary district of west Suffolk. My second preference would be for your proposed unitary of rural Suffolk. I think both these options could provide good services and opportunities for local democracy, though ‘rural Suffolk’ would be a very large area. I am strongly opposed to the idea of one authority covering all Suffolk apart from Lowestoft, as I think it would be unnecessarily bureaucratic and find it difficult to reflect the very different interests of rural and urban areas. Yours sincerely, Penny Bentley
From:
Subject: FW: Local Government Review in Suffolk Date: 02 September 2008 17:26:44
From: Sonia Docherty Posted At: 02 September 2008 16:43 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Local Government Review in Suffolk Subject: Local Government Review in Suffolk
Dear Sirs,
I'm writing as regards the above proposed boundary changes. I currently live in Ipswich but I have also lived in Stutton, Holbrook and Martlesham in the past. I think unitary councils are an excellent idea in achieving efficiencies through a reduction in the overall number of Councillors, Chief Executives and upper layers of management without actually reducing the resources that deliver the services. I was therefore surprised to see that having come up with a unitary proposal you then decide not to take full advantage and propose 2 unitary councils for a county which can't be any larger than any of the London Boroughs.
I think a unitary Suffolk Council including Lowestoft is best for the following reasons:
1) It takes full advantage of the efficiencies that can be gained 2) Lowestoft is in Suffolk and is proud to be in Suffolk, putting it in with Norfolk totally disregards the strength of its identify as a community and equally importantly disregards the healthy centuries old rivalry between Suffolk and Norfolk.
3) Any decisions taken in North Haven will have a direct impact on the rest of Suffolk - a decision to expand or contract the Docks at Felixstowe for instance will have a huge impact on the traffic going across the county East to West. Equally decisions on additional housing or building work in Ipswich would automatically affect the demand for housing in the surrounding areas which would fall within a different authority.
4) Whilst Ipswich may have a slightly different character and different needs to rural Suffolk it could be equally argued that Bury St Edmunds and Lowestoft are also different. Equally the proposed North Haven boundaries also include a large number of rural villages such as Stutton and Holbrook which have more in common with rural Suffolk than they do with Ipswich.
5) The Coastline of Suffolk is in need of management against erosion and it would make sense to have one authority responsible for managing it as opposed the piecemeal responsibility split proposed.
6) North Haven is smaller in geographical area but comprises most of the large businesses in Suffolk. Removing it from the rest of Suffolk means that North Haven will benefit more proportionately than the rest of the county which will have the added cost of having to deal with all the negative impact of some of its decisions - Keeping the decision making in one place means a more equitable allocation of resources.
Many thanks
Sonia Docherty
The information contained in this email or any of its attachments may be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software.
Customer Service Direct - a partnership between BT, Suffolk County Council and Mid Suffolk District Council. Customer Service Direct Ltd.
Registered in England No. 05111581 Registered Office:81 Newgate Street, London, EC1A 7AJ
From:
Subject: FW: The Future of Councils in Suffolk Date: 02 September 2008 17:25:47
From: Evelyn Barnes Posted At: 02 September 2008 16:54 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: The Future of Councils in Suffolk Subject: The Future of Councils in Suffolk Dear Sirs,
As a former employee of firstly East Suffolk and from 1974 of Suffolk county councils for a total of forty three years I have been involved with many changes in local government. As a retired member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors employed as a land agent with the management of agricultural land as well as some valuation work for the two authorities I have been able to see at first hand the advantages of there being a single council for the whole of Suffolk in future and I would add that it is essential for Lowestoft to remain part of that area.Once one leaves the urban sprawl of the major town of Ipswich the county is and should remain essentially a rural county to provide the food for the population in the years ahead. I am convinced that it will be in the country as well as the county's interest for it to be controlled as a single authority and to include the town of Lowestoft on its north-eastern boundary as a focus for that part of the county. I might perhaps add that from knowledge of the feelings of the people in that area any suggestion of amalgamating it with Yarmouth[ as part of Norfolk ] would be a complete anathema and I trust will not be proceded with. Yours faithfully E.C.Barnes M.R.I.C.S.
From:
Subject: FW: Proposed changes to Norfolk/Suffolk Boundaries Date: 02 September 2008 10:41:18
Posted At: 13 August 2008 10:00 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Proposed changes to Norfolk/Suffolk Boundaries Subject: Proposed changes to Norfolk/Suffolk Boundaries The proposals make no historic or administrative sense. You cannot re- write a thousand years of history and pretend that Suffolk as a county does not exist. Setting up Ipswich and Felixstowe as a separate unitary authority would deprive the remainder of rural Suffolk of a considerable part of its funding and deplete the resources and influence of the County Council considerably. Is this move politically motivated to further stiffle Tory voting areas? It seems to go hand in hand with the approval for supermarkets in rural areas. Local economies are wrecked, wiping out the inter- dependence of small towns and the producers in their hinterlands. Is it any wonder the countryside is in despair, seeing current government policy as nothing more than a cheap vote grabbing exercise by buttering up the urban population.
From:
Subject: FW: Suffolk Boundary Review Date: 02 September 2008 09:32:31
From: Alice Redfearn Posted At: 02 September 2008 09:27 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Suffolk Boundary Review Subject: Suffolk Boundary Review Sir I have carefully considered the proposals for boundary review in Suffolk and would like to register my personal opinion:
I am in favour of the status quo, although I acknowledge that some district councils (Waveney in particular) need considerable reorganisation to make them efficient and fit for purpose.
In consideration that the status quo is unlikely, I favour a unitary Suffolk without any divisions. In my
view the proposed alternatives would be to the detriment of the people of Suffolk, mainly due to its rurality and the funding issues which will arise if (a) Ipswich becomes a unitary authority and/or (b) Lowestoft is transferred to Norfolk.
It would be easy for me to ramble on for pages about the negative effects of the proposed changes, but as a County Council employee I am aware that a lot of very expensive people’s time is being spent doing so and I will therefore leave it to others. Many thanks for the opportunity to respond to these proposals. Alice Redfearn
From:
Subject: FW: lowestoft Date: 02 September 2008 09:16:37
From: [email protected] Posted At: 01 September 2008 19:10 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: lowestoft Subject: lowestoft why should the people of Lowestoft bear the expense of changing over to norfolk when they are quite happy being in suffolk. Each person in the town would have to change over driving licences, passports etc/.., at their own cost just because you want to change the boundary. LEAVE LOWESTOFT IN SUFFOLK
From:
Subject: FW: Proposed boundary change Date: 02 September 2008 09:16:15
From: R EASTWOOD Posted At: 01 September 2008 20:02 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Proposed boundary change Subject: Proposed boundary change Dear Sir/Madam, 01/09/08 I live in Lowestoft with my family and we are very concerned about the proposed changes.We strongly feel that Lowestoft should stay in Suffolk. The resulting upheaval would be expensive and to no good purpose;the sheer disruption to local services social/police/ education cannot be good and as one who works in education already , currently facing the changes to the 3 tier system [which has never fully been justified from the evidence], I cannot see any benefit for the changeover. The sheer uncertainty will put the proposed new build on the Waveney into jeopardy and we need to build up Lowestoft's profile and bring work,money and energy into the area.We need CEFAS and the Council and a University link in order to promote the town.Lowestoft is an economically depressed area with all the attendent social implications to that -as does Yarmouth- and so bringing 2 equally troubled towns together just seems a retrograde step and one that will just increase the difficulties. We are relative newcomers to Suffolk and all our locally born neighbours and friends are upset and angry about the change ; they are proud to be from Suffolk and feel that it is not a small matter to be disenfranchised.We agree with them. Please think again and realise this is not just a monetory exercise but is also attacking peoples strong sense of belonging to place and identity. And can such an amount of disruption really be worth it? Yours Sincerely Rosemary Eastwood and Peter Price
From:
Subject: FW: Boundary Date: 02 September 2008 09:16:04
From: Pauline Posted At: 01 September 2008 20:12 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Boundary Subject: Boundary Dear Sirs We totally disagree with moving the current boundary for Lowestoft. I live in Lowestoft and am proud to be part of Suffolk. I do NOT want to live in Norfolk and become marginalised and forgotten. This was brought home a couple of weeks ago when a community hall in Hopton was being looked at by a Norfolk official in order to organise renovations. He evidently commented, thinking he was talking to locals, that of course when Lowestoft became part of Norfolk “we will continue to look after our own” – presumably meaning the current people living in Norfolk. It just shows the attitude between the two counties. Lowestoft and Waveney should continue to have its clear identity and be able to focus on the development of Lowestoft and local coastal and market towns. So – we say NO to unwieldy mega-councils. LEAVE LOWESTOFT IN SUFFOLK. Pauline and Keith Mitchell
From:
Subject: FW: Suffolk boundary changes Date: 02 September 2008 09:14:47
From: Roberta Meadows Posted At: 01 September 2008 21:23 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Suffolk boundary changes Subject: Suffolk boundary changes Dear Sir I hope it isn`t too late to put in my views on the proposed changes. Though the cost and disruption will be enormous and I don`t agree that change is necessary, I can see that unitary authorities make sense. However, if it has to change, I would prefer a single Suffolk rather than the split into a larger Ipswich and the rest of Suffolk because it takes most of the prosperous areas around Ipswich and would leave a much poorer rest of Suffolk. This would have an adverse effect on the economy of the rest of Suffolk. I don`t think that splitting the county down into smaller unitary authorities would be beneficial either. I also think that the people of Lowestoft should decide whether they want to be part of a greater `yartoft`, not the national government. Since Suffolk CC already manage 80% of Suffolk now (education, social services, highways) there is far more understanding and knowledge and would be far less disruptive to take on the county as a single unitary authority than if IBC taks on this role. How would the fire, police, etc work? (Unless they become part of greater East Anglian forces which are even less answerable to local people.) How does education benefit from severing Ipswich and the rest of Suffolk? The previous Ipswich BC bid failed on its finances. I live just outside Ipswich and would not want to be `managed` by IBC judging on some of their previous decisions, particularly when giving themselves planning permission on their own land. My limited knowledge of some of IBC working practices leaves a lot to be desired. (Public Path Orders that they have made and even their top solicitor didn`t realise had to be confirmed.) SCC has a better understanding of how the overview/scrutiny and lower level committees work and already works with all the parishes, and has already
developed partnership working with the DCs. However, whichever authority is in charge, I have concerns about the devolution of services to parish councils. A lot of people don`t have time to be involved if they are working, so PCs tend to have more retired people which doesn`t reflect the wider community. Some parish council committee members can be quite `cliquey` and biased towards others or can be dominated by a large landowner or councillor/politician who uses their position of power to influence matters in their favour. (This hasn`t happened to me but I have seen it happen through my work.) Also the government is expecting all the PC work to be done for free. eg only parish clerks get paid and that is very little. How can you expect quality decision making through PCs voluntary work? I think eg planning decisions, need to be taken at one step removed from PCs. Finally, the cost of the change has to be taken into consideration. If the authority isn`t a single Suffolk, there will be a huge cost in paperwork, transferring eg educational assets between authorities, from which none of the public benefits, but which has to be done for legal reasons. I wasn`t working in Suffolk in 1973/74 during the last change but I get the impression that it took 2 years for the `dust` to settle before departments started getting back to `real` work. Yours faithfully Roberta Meadows
From:
Subject: FW: Boundary Review for Lowestoft Date: 02 September 2008 09:14:44
From: Shelby Berrey Posted At: 19 August 2008 13:55 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Boundary Review for Lowestoft Subject: Boundary Review for Lowestoft Although I was born in Norfolk I have lived in Lowestoft for the past 10 years and I currently work for Suffolk County Council within Children and Young Peoples Services as part of a Children's Centre team. I strongly oppose the proposals that are being put forward by the Boundary Committee. It seems that just as Lowestoft is being recognised as needing strong support and financial input from the council they are going to off load the 'burden' to Norfolk where, no doubt, we will become a poor second to Great Yarmouth. My eldest child is due to be caught up in the introduction of the new 2 tier system within schools in Lowestoft- how is this going to be implemented effectively and with as little disruption as possible if we will also be changing councils and therefore changing where the funding is coming from or has this money been ring- fenced already? What about the Waveney Campus? This has now been put on hold until a decision has been made. To my knowledge the businesses who currently occupy the proposed area have already been subject to compulsory purchase orders. Will the money already spent on this just be written off? I strongly feel the boundaries should remain as they are. It seems to work and the people of Lowestoft seem happy with what they get from Suffolk County Council. Regards Shelby Berrey 1st Steps Worker - Riverside Children's Centre, Lowestoft
From:
Subject: FW: North Haven Proposals Date: 09 September 2008 16:55:34 Attachments: North-Haven.doc
-----Original Message----- From: John Midwinter Posted At: 05 September 2008 20:20 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: North Haven Proposals Subject: North Haven Proposals Dear Sirs I attach a letter listing our views on the proposal to form a North Haven area within Suffolk which would encompass our own village. Yours sincerely John Midwinter -- John E Midwinter FRS FREng Emeritus Pender Professor, UCL
Lower Cottage
Lower Street
Great Bealings
Boundary Committee Review - North Haven Proposals
We have recently received a briefing in our villages on these proposals and now attach our response. We have listed two general comments and one that refers specifically to our own villages.
General - 1
Nothing we have heard or read presents a plausible argument to us for changing the existing system. The claims in the brochure entitled “Shaping the future of local government in Suffolk”
e.g.
Local decision-making means stronger communities
A new council will attract more investment, more jobs, more prosperity
More say over our own schools and bus routes
Better for business – one-stop shop planning and support
A bigger voice at local, regional and national levels”
appear to be completely unsubstantiated and little more than wishful thinking. No evidence is given supporting them and no quantitative targets or expectations are set. The only certain aspect of the proposals is that the tax-payer will again shoulder a substantial cost arising from yet more reoganisation. We were told by the local officials that the analysis of cost/benefit will show the start-up costs covered over 5 years but it was clear that none really believed that any savings would ever be achieved in practice. In summary :-
We believe no plausible case has been made for change and therefore strongly recommend retaining the status-quo.
General - 2
If it is deemed essential to move to a larger organisational entity than the current Suffolk Coastal District, then there appear to us to be two natural choices. The first and most obvious would be to treat Suffolk as a whole, in the same manner
as Norfolk. Alternatively or additionally, one might divide Suffolk into East and West divisions. This appears to be a natural division based upon geography and culture, since the East is dominated by its proximity to the North Sea with all the features this brings of micro-climate, tourism, shipping, import/export, etc. In the coming 50 years, we can also anticipate East Suffolk needing to stand united to fight climate change and rising sea levels. West Suffolk seems to be more dominantly a farming culture with its own focal point in Bury St-Edmunds and it will inevitably experience very different problems. In summary :-
If a larger organisational entity is deemed essential, we favour treating Suffolk as a single unit and retaining as many as possible of the local offices through which person-to-person contact is already easy. An intermediate suggestion would be to split Suffolk into East & West, drawing on the natural difference in these two communities imposed by geography and geology. But before this is done, we would expect to see a much clearer analysis of the costs and benefits and one that shows a predominace of benefits.
Specific
The map of the North Haven proposed area makes crystal clear that the boundary, at least around NW Ipswich. is bizarre in the extreme, with Great and Little Bealings arbitrarily included yet other similar villages like Tuddenham excluded. We feel very strongly that the Bealings share both a common interest and culture and are naturally a part of the region currently known as Suffolk Coastal since virtually all our links are with surrounding villages (Tuddenham, Grundisburgh etc), with Woodbridge and with places north such as Aldeburgh. We avoid Ipswich whenever possible and the notion that we should be joined to a grouping in which the largest single entity by far will be Ipswich seems exceedingly unattractive and utterly inappropriate. In short :-
If the North Haven proposal goes ahead, we believe passionately that the Bealings should be excluded and linked to the rest of Suffolk with which they share many more cultural and social ties.
We hope these comments are helpful
Yours sincerely
Emeritus Pender Professor of Electrical Engineering - UCL
(+44) (0)1473-735-622 (+ answerphone)
[email protected]
John E Midwinter DSc OBE FRS FREng FIEEE FIEE Emeritus Pender Professor of Electrical Engineering - UCL
5/9/08 Dear Sirs Boundary Committee Review - North Haven Proposals We have recently received a briefing in our villages on these proposals and now attach our response. We have listed two general comments and one that refers specifically to our own villages. General - 1 Nothing we have heard or read presents a plausible argument to us for changing the existing system. The claims in the brochure entitled “Shaping the future of local government in Suffolk” e.g. “Less waste means savings for council tax-payers Local decision-making means stronger communities A new council will attract more investment, more jobs, more prosperity More say over our own schools and bus routes Better for business – one-stop shop planning and support A bigger voice at local, regional and national levels” appear to be completely unsubstantiated and little more than wishful thinking. No evidence is given supporting them and no quantitative targets or expectations are set. The only certain aspect of the proposals is that the tax- payer will again shoulder a substantial cost arising from yet more reoganisation. We were told by the local officials that the analysis of cost/benefit will show the start-up costs covered over 5 years but it was clear that none really believed that any savings would ever be achieved in practice. In summary :- We believe no plausible case has been made for change and therefore strongly recommend retaining the status-quo. General - 2
If it is deemed essential to move to a larger organisational entity than the current Suffolk Coastal District, then there appear to us to be two natural choices. The first and most obvious would be to treat Suffolk as a whole, in the same manner as Norfolk. Alternatively or additionally, one might divide Suffolk into East and West divisions. This appears to be a natural division based upon geography and culture, since the East is dominated by its proximity to the North Sea with all the features this brings of micro-climate, tourism, shipping, import/export, etc. In the coming 50 years, we can also anticipate East Suffolk needing to stand united to fight climate change and rising sea levels. West Suffolk seems to be more dominantly a farming culture with its own focal point in Bury St- Edmunds and it will inevitably experience very different problems. In summary :- If a larger organisational entity is deemed essential, we favour treating Suffolk as a single unit and retaining as many as possible of the local offices through which person-to-person contact is already easy. An intermediate suggestion would be to split Suffolk into East & West, drawing on the natural difference in these two communities imposed by geography and geology. But before this is done, we would expect to see a much clearer analysis of the costs and benefits and one that shows a predominace of benefits. Specific The map of the North Haven proposed area makes crystal clear that the boundary, at least around NW Ipswich. is bizarre in the extreme, with Great and Little Bealings arbitrarily included yet other similar villages like Tuddenham excluded. We feel very strongly that the Bealings share both a common interest and culture and are naturally a part of the region currently known as Suffolk Coastal since virtually all our links are with surrounding villages (Tuddenham, Grundisburgh etc), with Woodbridge and with places north such as Aldeburgh. We avoid Ipswich whenever possible and the notion that we should be joined to a grouping in which the largest single entity by far will be Ipswich seems exceedingly unattractive and utterly inappropriate. In short :- If the North Haven proposal goes ahead, we believe passionately that the Bealings should be excluded and linked to the rest of Suffolk with which they share many more cultural and social ties. We hope these comments are helpful
Yours sincerely John & Maureen Midwinter
From:
Subject: FW: Local Government Review for Suffolk Date: 09 September 2008 16:49:24 Attachments: LGR Response.personal response doc.doc
From: Sue Boardman Posted At: 07 September 2008 14:09 Posted To: Reviews@ Conversation: Local Government Review for Suffolk Subject: Local Government Review for Suffolk To whom it may concern. Please find attached my personal response to the Boundary Committee's proposals.
<<LGR Response.personal response doc.doc>>
Sue Boardman Area Manager for Schools and Communities
LGR Response
· I work for Suffolk County Council in Children and Young People Services.
· I live in an area just outside Lowestoft that would remain within Suffolk.
· I cannot support the proposal for Lowestoft to become part of Norfolk County Council due to the impact this will have on present and planned developments for children, young people and their families.
· My key concerns are around the timing of the proposals for both Suffolk and Norfolk. Each authority has worked hard over the last 2 years to form and develop new ways of working to provide joined up services for children, young people and their families. The changes are still in process of development and I believe that the LGR would not only stall these changes but may well bring them to a standstill. This would put children and young people and vulnerable adults at risk which is totally unacceptable.
· Partnership working has improved across the two counties. I do not believe however that there are sufficient consistent approaches to the ways services are delivered. If Lowestoft were to move into Norfolk this would prove extremely challenging and damaging for service users and could potentially disadvantage those with the greatest needs and vulnerabilities.
· The impact of the proposals for the Suffolk Sc

Documents

From: Nigel Blake Posted At: 04 September 2008 15:40